Quintana??

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

In 2001 he went pretty much straight from the bottom. I would say that he was trying.

On stage 10, IIRC the first day in the mountains. Today was stage 20, the last day in the mountains.

Yeah, but they had almost 6 hours of racing in their legs when they started the climb and Telekom went hard on Madeleine and Glandon.

And we often see as strong if not stronger performances in the third week as we see in the first, so it doesn't really mean all that much.

True on the stage details, though Armstrong was laughing between the Glandon and Madeline with Chechu. Don't think he was in much trouble. Clearly.

I would like to see something to back up the idea that times don't slow down near the end of the race. Not sure how to get at that, but seems obviously counter intuitive for the group as a whole over time. Some riders? Sure. The whole group? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Netserk]

For the top riders. They peak for the third week.

 

[BrentonOfTheNorth]

IIRC Armstrong referred to 2001 Alpe d'Huez as his "best day on a bike, ever" in an interview on OLN/Versus after the 2003 Tour ended.

Do we have any solid information as to whether a clean rider almost always will have significantly worse performances late in a grand tour? If they've been racing the GT hard, at least. I've heard that hematocrit naturally should drop significantly by then in some of the 1999 Giro Pantani discussions of the past.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re:

In 2001 he went pretty much straight from the bottom. I would say that he was trying.

And he had a big gap in the end. I've said this in other threads, but I continue to doubt the comparability of individual climbing times across different years when the same riders doing the same climbs have so widely different times. There is clearly an omitted variable that explains differences in mean climbing times for the same climb done in different years.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

In 2001 he went pretty much straight from the bottom. I would say that he was trying.

On stage 10, IIRC the first day in the mountains. Today was stage 20, the last day in the mountains.

Yeah that was the first big mountain stage in 2001.

I was merely replying to a suggestion that Armstrong rarely went all out.

Of the ascents in the BP era only Sastre and Rodriguez have climbed within 1 minute of Quintana's time from today even if circumstances were different for all 4 climbs.

Agree, he often went all out. The guy won a LOT of MTF's.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

For the top riders. They peak for the third week.

Depends on the course. Some do, some try, many fade hard. Clearly in this Tour Froome peaked early and Nibali peaked late. For example.

 

[red_flanders]

As was also just said, Armstrong actually took 1:17 out of Quintana's time (39:22-38:05, you may have your omniscience but I have my 'rithmetic). That was the famous "bluff" stage, were a ridiculously hard tempo was set all day. That day was also 209km and included the Madelaine as well as CdF, and started with a Cat 3 700vm drag up to Col du Frene. Armstrong attacked at the base of the climb with Rubiera, and was by his lonesome 2km in. Honest question: do you think boy wonder really needed less help doing that than Nairo did for his performance today?

I noted the time error above, certainly you saw that. I also love that you're so threatened by my views that you have to resort to silly snark about omniscience. Telling.

No. I think it's clear that the passport limits the doping a bit more than was the case in the 50% era. It's also clear that they can't get anybody with the passport, that EPO micro-dosing works and is undetectable, and that riders still dope.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

For the top riders. They peak for the third week.

Depends on the course. Some do, some try, many fade hard. Clearly in this Tour Froome peaked early and Nibali peaked late. For example.

Nibali's peak seemed severely 'curtailed' compared to last year, whereas Astana were flying in Italy, but not the major force some expected to be at the TdF.

I suspect they were warned not to turn up and rip up the race.

 

[difdauf]

I don't say quintana is clean. You just can't take Armstrong times as an example of what is humanly impossible when he is not even trying.

Did someone do that? If so I missed it. What I did was post the top 100 times up that mountain. I struggle to find one person who wasn't on a full program in that list. Maybe a case could be made for 1-3 of the times. Out of 100. Maybe in the wildest dreams of clean there 5. That's 95% doped times on the list. Also note that as someone mentioned, many of those are fully doped TT times (2004).

That's all. Draw your own conclusions, but to me that's amazing.

Everyone in the yellow jersey group and faster today comes in nearer the top of that list than the bottom...on the second to last day of the Tour. After 3 weeks. And we're supposed to believe, according to some, that this is normal human evolution. Sorry, I don't buy it, not even remotely.

I think the whole "humanly possible" line of discussion is a huge joke, and the list of riders/times up the Alpe is a perfect example of why. Almost every one of the top 100 times, and quite likely every single one was posted by a doped rider, a doped top-level, champion rider on EPO, blood bags on who knows what else. And some of them aren't within shouting distance of "what's humanly possible", but we know for a fact those are doped times. As such, it puts how ridiculous the bar of "what's humanly possible" is for determining if someone is doped. It's as close to meaningless as can be.

You were using Armstong's 41' in 2003 to demonstrate how strong Quintana is with 39'22 , clearly *** as they stopped at middle height.

 

[Benotti69]

As was also just said, Armstrong actually took 1:17 out of Quintana's time (39:22-38:05, you may have your omniscience but I have my 'rithmetic). That was the famous "bluff" stage, were a ridiculously hard tempo was set all day. That day was also 209km and included the Madelaine as well as CdF, and started with a Cat 3 700vm drag up to Col du Frene. Armstrong attacked at the base of the climb with Rubiera, and was by his lonesome 2km in. Honest question: do you think boy wonder really needed less help doing that than Nairo did for his performance today?

I noted the time error above, certainly you saw that.

No. I think it's clear that the passport limits the doping a bit more than was the case in the 50% era. It's also clear that they can't get anybody with the passport, that EPO micro-dosing works and is undetectable, and that riders still dope.

It would appear the EPO micro-doping plus new weight reduction and increase in power seems to be the order of the day. Froome seems to be big time responder, but maybe we are looking at Armstrong type Shenanigans on top of the doping. Sky may have 'aligned' with UCI/ASO in a smoke filled backroom somewhere down a dark alley......

 

[red_flanders]

I don't say quintana is clean. You just can't take Armstrong times as an example of what is humanly impossible when he is not even trying.

Did someone do that? If so I missed it. What I did was post the top 100 times up that mountain. I struggle to find one person who wasn't on a full program in that list. Maybe a case could be made for 1-3 of the times. Out of 100. Maybe in the wildest dreams of clean there 5. That's 95% doped times on the list. Also note that as someone mentioned, many of those are fully doped TT times (2004).

That's all. Draw your own conclusions, but to me that's amazing.

Everyone in the yellow jersey group and faster today comes in nearer the top of that list than the bottom...on the second to last day of the Tour. After 3 weeks. And we're supposed to believe, according to some, that this is normal human evolution. Sorry, I don't buy it, not even remotely.

I think the whole "humanly possible" line of discussion is a huge joke, and the list of riders/times up the Alpe is a perfect example of why. Almost every one of the top 100 times, and quite likely every single one was posted by a doped rider, a doped top-level, champion rider on EPO, blood bags on who knows what else. And some of them aren't within shouting distance of "what's humanly possible", but we know for a fact those are doped times. As such, it puts how ridiculous the bar of "what's humanly possible" is for determining if someone is doped. It's as close to meaningless as can be.

You were using Armstong's 41' in 2003 to demonstrate how strong Quintana is with 39'22 , clearly *** as they stopped at middle height.

Maybe you can point me to this post as I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[difdauf]

Re: Re:

New generation...........where????????????

Oh, can it. Whatever they're doing now is clearly less than the were doing ten years ago. On a short stage,one guy went faster than 40:30.

In 2003's first mountain stage, Iban Mayo won the Alpe D'Huez stage with a climb of 39:08, Armstrong was 02:12 behind, i.e. his ascent time was over 41:00. Both were on the juice.

There's no visible difference now, IMO.

This. All day long.

 

[Benotti69]

I don't say quintana is clean. You just can't take Armstrong times as an example of what is humanly impossible when he is not even trying.

Did someone do that? If so I missed it. What I did was post the top 100 times up that mountain. I struggle to find one person who wasn't on a full program in that list. Maybe a case could be made for 1-3 of the times. Out of 100. Maybe in the wildest dreams of clean there 5. That's 95% doped times on the list. Also note that as someone mentioned, many of those are fully doped TT times (2004).

That's all. Draw your own conclusions, but to me that's amazing.

Everyone in the yellow jersey group and faster today comes in nearer the top of that list than the bottom...on the second to last day of the Tour. After 3 weeks. And we're supposed to believe, according to some, that this is normal human evolution. Sorry, I don't buy it, not even remotely.

I think the whole "humanly possible" line of discussion is a huge joke, and the list of riders/times up the Alpe is a perfect example of why. Almost every one of the top 100 times, and quite likely every single one was posted by a doped rider, a doped top-level, champion rider on EPO, blood bags on who knows what else. And some of them aren't within shouting distance of "what's humanly possible", but we know for a fact those are doped times. As such, it puts how ridiculous the bar of "what's humanly possible" is for determining if someone is doped. It's as close to meaningless as can be.

You were using Armstong's 41' in 2003 to demonstrate how strong Quintana is with 39'22 , clearly *** as they stopped at middle height.

Middle height of what? L'Ape D'Huez?

 

[franic]

By definition, the performance of the best climber is very close to being superhuman. As someone suggested people are screaming much less about Quintana because he's won Tour de l'Avenir, he's 1.67m and 56kg.
Froome on the other hand used to exploit cars while ascending climbs, he's 1.86m and 85kg according to Sky...

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re:

By definition, the performance of the best climber is very close to being superhuman. As someone suggested people are screaming much less about Quintana because he's won Tour de l'Avenir, he's 1.67m and 56kg.
Froome on the other hand used to exploit cars while ascending climbs, he's 1.86m and 85kg according to Sky...

Assuming you accept that Quintana is a human being, what bearing do his dimensions have on the question of the plausibiilty of this performance? Seems a bit strange to suspend the accepted limits of physiology - whatever they are btw - just cos he's small.

Good thread, FWIW.

 

[franic]

Re: Re:

By definition, the performance of the best climber is very close to being superhuman. As someone suggested people are screaming much less about Quintana because he's won Tour de l'Avenir, he's 1.67m and 56kg.
Froome on the other hand used to exploit cars while ascending climbs, he's 1.86m and 85kg according to Sky...

Assuming you accept that Quintana is a human being, what bearing do his dimensions have on the question of the plausibiilty of this performance? Seems a bit strange to suspend the accepted limits of physiology - whatever they are btw - just cos he's small.

Good thread, FWIW.

The whole post was to mock Froome's weight data...
Anyway, Quintana is born as a grimpeur. And producing a 6 W/kg ratio with 350W is much less impressive than with 420W

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

By definition, the performance of the best climber is very close to being superhuman. As someone suggested people are screaming much less about Quintana because he's won Tour de l'Avenir, he's 1.67m and 56kg.
Froome on the other hand used to exploit cars while ascending climbs, he's 1.86m and 85kg according to Sky...

Assuming you accept that Quintana is a human being, what bearing do his dimensions have on the question of the plausibiilty of this performance? Seems a bit strange to suspend the accepted limits of physiology - whatever they are btw - just cos he's small.

Good thread, FWIW.

Yep, no difference between the likelihood of a 2.01m 95kg rider and a 1.67m and 56kg rider climbing the fastest it is possible for a human being.

 

[scapewalker]

Don't you guys think it's kinda ridicolous how Pantani would have put 2 minutes 40 seconds into Q on Alpe d'Huez??

I'm left speechless tbh. He makes all the pro's today who are most oviously still doping look like amateurs.
The amount of staff he was on must have been insane.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

By definition, the performance of the best climber is very close to being superhuman. As someone suggested people are screaming much less about Quintana because he's won Tour de l'Avenir, he's 1.67m and 56kg.
Froome on the other hand used to exploit cars while ascending climbs, he's 1.86m and 85kg according to Sky...

Assuming you accept that Quintana is a human being, what bearing do his dimensions have on the question of the plausibiilty of this performance? Seems a bit strange to suspend the accepted limits of physiology - whatever they are btw - just cos he's small.

Good thread, FWIW.

The whole post was to mock Froome's weight data...
Anyway, Quintana is born as a grimpeur. And producing a 6 W/kg ratio with 350W is much less impressive than with 420W

There's a thread for that. It's quite popular

 

[pmcg76]

As always context is crucial here. For example, there is 3 minutes + between Armstrongs fastest and slowest ascents of L'Alpe which illustrates the difference between full gas and just controlling.

The fastest time of Greg LeMond/Charly Mottet is only 7 seconds slower than Armstrong in 99. Neither LeMond or Mottet were the best climbers of their generation.

Quintana is 2.30 faster than his countryman from 30 years ago Luis Herrera 41.50. Realistic improvement over a 30 year period?? Anyone care to take a guess where a likely improvement curve should be over that period??

One thing is sure, the pace was hot from the foot of the Alpe today which will always result in a faster time and it was Le Tour on the line.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Don't you guys think it's kinda ridicolous how Pantani would have put 2 minutes 40 seconds into Q on Alpe d'Huez??

I'm left speechless tbh. He makes all the pro's today who are most oviously still doping look like amateurs.
The amount of staff he was on must have been insane.

He made all the pros in the 50% era and the no limits era look like amateurs. He was astonishing. No difference.

Don't know that he was on anything different in the 50% era, he was simply a legendary climber.

 

[franic]

Re:

Don't you guys think it's kinda ridicolous how Pantani would have put 2 minutes 40 seconds into Q on Alpe d'Huez??

I'm left speechless tbh. He makes all the pro's today who are most oviously still doping look like amateurs.
The amount of staff he was on must have been insane.

It's the difference between micro and full dosing...

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Don't you guys think it's kinda ridicolous how Pantani would have put 2 minutes 40 seconds into Q on Alpe d'Huez??

I'm left speechless tbh. He makes all the pro's today who are most oviously still doping look like amateurs.
The amount of staff he was on must have been insane.

It's the difference between micro and full dosing...

Not sure that tells the whole story. His best ascent, for example, is about a minute faster than Armstrong's best, which was a TT. He has the top 3 times ever, and those were legendary exploits at the time, he crushed everyone.

He was a dominant climber in his day and certainly everyone was on the juice then.

Overall speeds are a bit slower now then they used to be, but at the top I don't much difference. All the climbs this year have been right in line with an era we know was all-doped, all the time.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

As always context is crucial here. For example, there is 3 minutes + between Armstrongs fastest and slowest ascents of L'Alpe which illustrates the difference between full gas and just controlling.

The fastest time of Greg LeMond/Charly Mottet is only 7 seconds slower than Armstrong in 99. Neither LeMond or Mottet were the best climbers of their generation.

Quintana is 2.30 faster than his countryman from 30 years ago Luis Herrera 41.50. Realistic improvement over a 30 year period?? Anyone care to take a guess where a likely improvement curve should be over that period??

One thing is sure, the pace was hot from the foot of the Alpe today which will always result in a faster time and it was Le Tour on the line.

Lol. No it won't. It will only result in a fast time if the riders can sustain the high pace. Or do you think Lemond would climb Alpe faster if he did the first few kms as fast as Pantani did? In 2003 they literally sprinted in the beginning, yet it was one of the slowest ascents of Lance.

 

["Jeff"]

Re:

Don't you guys think it's kinda ridicolous how Pantani would have put 2 minutes 40 seconds into Q on Alpe d'Huez??

I'm left speechless tbh. He makes all the pro's today who are most oviously still doping look like amateurs.
The amount of staff he was on must have been insane.

Pretty much.

Though the best climber the cycling world has ever seen.